Sorry to say it Bob but I think the entire premise of this article is flawed and you’re making the same error that Sam kept trying to point out to the DTG guys, namely that if you expand the concept of tribes/tribalism too much then it loses any useful meaning. For example dimension #1 presupposes that you and he are in different “tribes…
Sorry to say it Bob but I think the entire premise of this article is flawed and you’re making the same error that Sam kept trying to point out to the DTG guys, namely that if you expand the concept of tribes/tribalism too much then it loses any useful meaning. For example dimension #1 presupposes that you and he are in different “tribes”. However if you examined your respective political and philosophical positions, I’d be willing to bet you’re quite closely aligned. Similarly in more general terms you’re both successful public intellectuals and podcasters who write a lot about mindfulness and religion! So in more ways than not you could say that you’re both in the same tribe, and the much more pertinent fact here is that you simply don’t like each other. Of course it’s still not good to misrepresent the views of people you don’t like, but that’s as far as Sam’s transgression goes and that’s different to “misrepresenting the views of another tribe”. Similarly Sam and Bret Weinstein have been at loggerheads for many months now, to the point where they could reasonably be considered in separate “tribes”. The example you give is simply a case of Sam being kinder to those who he still considers a friend. Again not exactly virtuous but I don’t see how that represents tribalism. Finally in #4 you say that Sam being fair to Trump ‘cost him support within his own tribe’. Is this the same tribe that he and BW are supposedly a part of? I don’t know what BW’s views of Trump are (nor do I care) but I’m pretty sure significant elements of the IDW are sympathetic to Trump. I’m sure Sam being fair to Trump cost Sam support among Trump fans, and that may be worth commenting on, but trying to overlay the tribalism framework to this seems pointless. You could make the case that Sam being fair to Trump helped him with his own tribe, or hurt him, depending on which definition of "tribe" you feel like using. By all means continue to criticise Sam for what you consider to be his personality flaws (and I’ll continue to read it!) but I think you’d be better served dispensing with the elastic and inconsistent “tribalism” framework.
Sorry to say it Bob but I think the entire premise of this article is flawed and you’re making the same error that Sam kept trying to point out to the DTG guys, namely that if you expand the concept of tribes/tribalism too much then it loses any useful meaning. For example dimension #1 presupposes that you and he are in different “tribes”. However if you examined your respective political and philosophical positions, I’d be willing to bet you’re quite closely aligned. Similarly in more general terms you’re both successful public intellectuals and podcasters who write a lot about mindfulness and religion! So in more ways than not you could say that you’re both in the same tribe, and the much more pertinent fact here is that you simply don’t like each other. Of course it’s still not good to misrepresent the views of people you don’t like, but that’s as far as Sam’s transgression goes and that’s different to “misrepresenting the views of another tribe”. Similarly Sam and Bret Weinstein have been at loggerheads for many months now, to the point where they could reasonably be considered in separate “tribes”. The example you give is simply a case of Sam being kinder to those who he still considers a friend. Again not exactly virtuous but I don’t see how that represents tribalism. Finally in #4 you say that Sam being fair to Trump ‘cost him support within his own tribe’. Is this the same tribe that he and BW are supposedly a part of? I don’t know what BW’s views of Trump are (nor do I care) but I’m pretty sure significant elements of the IDW are sympathetic to Trump. I’m sure Sam being fair to Trump cost Sam support among Trump fans, and that may be worth commenting on, but trying to overlay the tribalism framework to this seems pointless. You could make the case that Sam being fair to Trump helped him with his own tribe, or hurt him, depending on which definition of "tribe" you feel like using. By all means continue to criticise Sam for what you consider to be his personality flaws (and I’ll continue to read it!) but I think you’d be better served dispensing with the elastic and inconsistent “tribalism” framework.